How to Establish Adverse Possession When the Owner is Unknown

My question involves real estate located in the State of: Indiana

I've been on a quest for a few years now on how to acquire a strip of property between my property and the lake. Originally, the property was platted as a common area on the original plat maps. In the 90's the property was deeded to the local HOA. The HOA lost its charter 20 years ago and now there actually is no owner of this property. When I originally pursued this the plat maps identified the HOA as deed holder and my inquires caused the township assessor to research ownership and when none could be determined, it is their default to assign it to the company that did the original plat books in 1932. That company has not existed for years.

I spoke with the county attorney that says the property does need to be put on the tax roles. The county recorder, assessor, auditor and treasurer all tell me the same thing, hire a lawyer.

I spoke with an attorney and they quoted me a price per hour. Do I have any other options? Priced by the hour is too open ended for me.

There is ALWAYS an owner to the property. The HOA may have been dissolved, but there likely is some successor to the property. You're going to need a title search to dig through the records and figure out exactly the ownership status. You can't do that just by looking at a plat book. As for acquiring the property, I'm afraid I'm going to have to give you the same advice as everyone else. You can't possibly convey sufficient information over an internet forum for us to tell you how to proceed pro se. You don't even know the answers. You'll need a lawyer. Keep calling around. At least they should be able to predict the amount of time required at least to get you to certain points in the process.

Quote:

---

Quoting JamesBittner

---

Do I have any other options?

---

Maybe.

You use the term "adverse possession" in the title of your post but did you actually look it up?

Here's some information that includes the statute reference:

http://statelaws.findlaw.com/indiana...sion-laws.html

If you have used the land for ten years you can potentially claim it by adverse possession.

If you haven't used the land but just looked covetously at it, you can use it in the way described for the next ten years and then claim it.

Probably a good and cheap way to accomplish that is buy an 8' x 10' metal shed and assemble on the strip of land and put some cheap garden tools in it. Take dated photos so you can establish onset.

Might work.

Eventually, though, you are likely to have to pay a lawyer to facilitate getting title to the land.

Yep, he's still going to need to do:

1. Get a lawyer
2. Find out who apparently owns the land. You just can't claim adverse possession merely by possessing it. You need to sue for it and you need to name the presumtive actual owner of it. An other option if a search really can't find a successor owner to the land, is a quiet title lawsuit.

He needs a lawyer who can figure out what the exact status of the land is and what the best approach is.

As to an attorney giving you a simple per hour fee; what else do you expect? Until the attorney starts to research the matter they have no idea what they are facing. They can't give you a time estimate because they just have no way of knowing when, or even if, they will find the owner. It may require multiple suits among various successors or heirs to figure out who is the current legal owner.

Wanting the attorney to promise you results in any specified period of time is just unrealistic.

Forget about adverse possession and concentrate on obtaining the property through public auction and tax sale. If nobody has paid taxes on that land for as little as 2 years, then the county, municipality, or town can get a court order to list the property for sale because of delinquency or abandonment. Go back and talk to the auditor and treasurer.

The Indiana statutes governing the tax sale can be found in IC 6-1.1-24 and IC 6-1.1-25.

Of course everybody gets to bid on the property in that situation.

It also requires the local taxing authority to determine who actually owns the property so they can send the owner a tax bill. I Suspect the taxing authority won't go to that trouble.

The law requires the taxing jurisdiction to tax every piece of property in their jurisdiction unless it is tax-exempt. And it looks like this piece of property has fallen through the cracks for the past 20 years. It is incumbent upon the taxing jurisdiction to get the property on the tax rolls. I don't think they have a choice now that it has been brought to their attention.

If you consider the alternative (AP) and what it would cost for OP to determine who the rightful owner is and what the cost of a lawsuit would be (with no guarantee of success) and wait 10 years, using the property as his own, I think it would be far more expensive than buying the tax sale certificate for property at a tax auction. You buy the certificate not the property.

If the tax assessor couldn't determine who the successor owner is with their resources, then I doubt OP would have much success and it would end up in a court to determine. The taxing jurisdiction has a duty to do it and if an owner is not found, has the power to notify through publication.

I disagree. The taxing authority has no such mandate. They are not required to be the investigative body to research title to a property. I don't think you'll find support for your statement that the law requires they levy a tax upon every piece of land in such a manner they are required to investigate this piece of property. What law are you suggesting op can produce that would show the taxing authority must seek to obtain the name of the owner? It's just one of those situations where the situation allows the taxing authority to ignore its existence.

to put it simply;
what action do you believe the op has to force the taxing authority ascertain the name of the current owner or levy taxes upon the parcel?

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

I disagree. The taxing authority has no such mandate. They are not required to be the investigative body to research title to a property. I don't think you'll find support for your statement that the law requires they levy a tax upon every piece of land in such a manner they are required to investigate this piece of property. What law are you suggesting op can produce that would show the taxing authority must seek to obtain the name of the owner? It's just one of those situations where the situation allows the taxing authority to ignore its existence.

to put it simply;
what action do you believe the op has to force the taxing authority ascertain the name of the current owner or levy taxes upon the parcel?

---

You can disagree but every property in Indiana shall be assessed no matter what the real property is or who owns it. You can read the tax code the same as I can if you want to stop shooting from the hip.

What section of the code do you think allows the county to just ignore collecting taxes because it's too much work to find out who should get the tax bill?

Quote:

---

I spoke with the county attorney that says the property does need to be put on the tax roles.

---

Quote:

---

Section 6-1.1-4-1
Sec. 1. Real property shall be assessed at the place where it is situated, and it shall be assessed to the person liable for the taxes under IC 1971, 6-1.1-2-4. -

---

Indiana Constitution:

Quote:

---

ARTICLE 10. Finance

Section 1. Assessment and taxation

Section 1. (a) The General Assembly shall provide, by law, for a uniform and equal rate of property assessment and taxation and shall prescribe regulations to secure a just valuation for taxation of all property, both real and personal. The General Assembly may exempt from property taxation any property in any of the following classes:

(1) Property being used for municipal, educational, literary, scientific, religious or charitable purposes;
(2) Tangible personal property other than property being held for sale in the ordinary course of a trade or business, property being held, used or consumed in connection with the production of income, or property being held as an investment;
(3) Intangible personal property.

(b) The General Assembly may exempt any motor vehicles, mobile homes, airplanes, boats, trailers or similar property, provided that an excise tax in lieu of the property tax is substituted therefor.


(History: As Amended November 8, 1966).

---

Do you see an exemption for it's too much trouble to find who the bill should go to?

Quote:

---

Quoting budwad

---

You can disagree but every property in Indiana shall be assessed no matter what the real property is or who owns it. You can read the tax code the same as I can if you want to stop shooting from the hip.

What section of the code do you think allows the county to just ignore collecting taxes because it's too much work to find out who should get the tax bill?

Indiana Constitution:

Do you see an exemption for it's too much trouble to find who the bill should go to?

---

the Indiana constitution does not mandate action. It allows
for the levying of taxes.

IC 6-1.1-4-1 does not say all property shall be assessed. It says all property assessed where it is situated. The title of the section is procedures for real property assesment. It says nothing about what properties must be assessed. It is a "how to" rule of when assessing is done.

ill tell you what; you believe the state must act and assess taxes. Ill even leave that at that. Show me where the state must do anything to actually enforce collection of the taxes and if the taxes are not paid, must auction the property at a tax sale.

Then, if you happen to find something even somewhat supportive, define the actions available to the op should the state not perform as you claim is required.

In reality, due to errors and discrepancies there are untold sections of land in every single state that is not on the tax rolls of that state. Using your argument the state is obligated to ensure that every square inch of property is accounted for and either taxed or assigned an exemption. You let me know how that argument is received in the state legislatures. I suspect you will likely evoke a good round of laughter when you get to the part about they are obligated to act.

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

the Indiana constitution does not mandate action. It allows
for the levying of taxes. .

---

And your authority for this interpretation is where? Is it based on the word shall tax all properties? So your interpretation is that a taxing authority can be arbitrary in choosing which properties to tax and which not to tax? Show me the Legislative intent to only tax the properties that are convenient to tax. Show me one case anywhere in the States or the Federal courts where someone has sued to be added to the tax rolls.

The rest of your argument is just to argue because the intent of the Constitution is clear enough. Equal protection for all the property owners and taxation on all properties on a fair and equitable bases.

Quote:

---

Quoting budwad

---

And your authority for this interpretation is where? Is it based on the word shall tax all properties? So your interpretation is that a taxing authority can be arbitrary in choosing which properties to tax and which not to tax? Show me the Legislative intent to only tax the properties that are convenient to tax. Show me one case anywhere in the States or the Federal courts where someone has sued to be added to the tax rolls.

The rest of your argument is just to argue because the intent of the Constitution is clear enough. Equal protection for all the property owners and taxation on all properties on a fair and equitable bases.

---

Unless you use a different dictionary than I, assessed means evaluated. That section of law does not asdress the levying of taxes.


that
section of the Constitution puts the state's rights in place
to be able to assess and levy. It does not direct the actual levying of
taxes.

Quote:

---

Quoting budwad

---

And your authority for this interpretation is where? Is it based on the word shall tax all properties? So your interpretation is that a taxing authority can be arbitrary in choosing which properties to tax and which not to tax? Show me the Legislative intent to only tax the properties that are convenient to tax. Show me one case anywhere in the States or the Federal courts where someone has sued to be added to the tax rolls.

The rest of your argument is just to argue because the intent of the Constitution is clear enough. Equal protection for all the property owners and taxation on all properties on a fair and equitable bases.

---

If land does not belong to an individual or company, it belongs to the county or state (county by default). Do you expect the county or state to tax themselves?

In Indiana, even before they completely rewrote their property tax code, land could only go to the county with a court order. There is no default ownership by the counties.

With that being said, this piece of property we are talking about was once owned by a HOA. And in Indiana, property so owned may have an assessed value of $0 and no taxes due from the HOA on that land because the value of the common areas was apportioned to the unit owners. So it is very possible that this piece of land never had taxes due. Thus, when the HOA went out of business and no taxes ever showed up as being delinquent, it just sat on the tax rolls. Now after 20 years they have lost track of the successors. It is the successor's responsibility to notify the taxing jurisdiction of address changes when there is no deed transfer in the chain of title. That obviously has not been done.


Since the land is no longer owned by a HOA, it will be taxed on the value of the land and someone will get the tax bill. As OP stated, the assessor's office said they will list the company that did the platting as the owner. That seems arbitrary to me but I guess it is a starting point to find the true successor if there is one. It is possible that the chain of title ended with the defunct HOA. And as the County Attorney said, "It has to be added to the tax rolls." I suspect that what has to be added is the owner of record. The parcel is surely on the tax maps and is listed in the tax rolls and someone will get a bill.

In terms of the question of whether a local government must investigate every third party report of an error in its tax rolls, I am not aware of any state that imposes such a duty. The duty imposed on the legislature to pass property tax laws and regulations is not a duty that falls on local governments. Most local governments will correct errors in the tax rolls that come to their attention, but they may consider the cost and burden of investigating an error, as well as the amount of tax money that is likely to be recovered as a result of the correction, when deciding whether and when to investigate an error. The process is much better defined when it comes to property owners challenging errors or requesting re-assessment of their own properties.

The narrative that we have is somewhat murky. If the strip of property at issue was owned by a now-defunct HOA, upon the dissolution of the HOA the property would remain in the HOA's name. Title would not revert to a historic owner. It's also not clear whether this discussion pertains to all land owned by the HOA, or only to a small portion of the land with it being clear who owns the remaining lands. In the former case, it's difficult to believe that there is not a clear title record that could be added to the tax rolls. In the latter case, it would be most likely that any omission from the transfer resulted from a scrivener's error, something that could be clarified with the present owner of the balance of the land. It seems unlikely that a defunct HOA would want to retain part of its land, or that either party would want to incur the cost and burden of surveying and (if even possible) splitting the land, or that such a split could occur without being clearly reflected in the title history.

Whatever happened, I can see why the local government's response would be, "If you pay for the lawyers and surveyors required to sort out title issues and ownership history, we'll update our title and tax records, but at this time we're not going to initiate that process ourselves."

Quote:

---

Quoting budwad

---

In Indiana, even before they completely rewrote their property tax code, land could only go to the county with a court order. There is no default ownership by the counties.

With that being said, this piece of property we are talking about was once owned by a HOA. And in Indiana, property so owned may have an assessed value of $0 and no taxes due from the HOA on that land because the value of the common areas was apportioned to the unit owners. So it is very possible that this piece of land never had taxes due. Thus, when the HOA went out of business and no taxes ever showed up as being delinquent, it just sat on the tax rolls. Now after 20 years they have lost track of the successors. It is the successor's responsibility to notify the taxing jurisdiction of address changes when there is no deed transfer in the chain of title. That obviously has not been done.


Since the land is no longer owned by a HOA, it will be taxed on the value of the land and someone will get the tax bill. As OP stated, the assessor's office said they will list the company that did the platting as the owner. That seems arbitrary to me but I guess it is a starting point to find the true successor if there is one. It is possible that the chain of title ended with the defunct HOA. And as the County Attorney said, "It has to be added to the tax rolls." I suspect that what has to be added is the owner of record. The parcel is surely on the tax maps and is listed in the tax rolls and someone will get a bill.

---

Bud, there is still land in this country that is unowned by any individual or company. There are federal lands, state lands and county lands. Now, you may live in a state where no such land exists, or so very little of such lands exists that you are unaware of it, but government ownership of land does exist.

If the supposition of the original poster is correct that this tract was owned by the HOA (though again, absent some research into the title history, we won't know that and that is absolutely the first place to start), it is NOT the case that just becauset he HOA was disbanded that the property is owned by "nobody." Just as if someone dies, the property doesn't magically go up for grabs. There's going to be a successor. Even if no single entity survives the HOA, I suspect the community property of the HOA may belong to all those who were members of the association unless the dissolution specifically discussed distributing the assets when it was dissolved (again more research is going to need to be done).

Absent knowing exactly what the ownership of the property is (and claiming that the tax department somehow affects this is silly), there's no way to start either adverse possession or other action. You don't just assert adverse possession, you must file against the entity that was the putative owner.

Quote:

---

Quoting flyingron

---

You don't just assert adverse possession, you must file against the entity that was the putative owner.

---

Actually, courts have consistently supported the position that, once an adverse claim satisties statutory requirements, title lies with the claimant at that moment.

This seems to be a widely misunderstood concept here and elsewhere. I am not specificcally referring to the OP in this thread; just this one essential aspect of AP.

Once an AP claim is established by fact, there is no requirement at law for the claimant to track down and sue the former owner. In fact, at this point, the problem lies with the former owner, who must accept the situation or file a suit for ejectment or trespass. The only theoretical need the succesful AP claimant might have would be if the claimant needed an immediately marketable title in all respects. Of course, once the statute of limtations has run, it is too late for ejectment to succeed against a calimant who has met all of the additional requirements, which never include going to court in the first instance.

Quote:

---

Quoting flyingron

---

Absent knowing exactly what the ownership of the property is (and claiming that the tax department somehow affects this is silly), there's no way to start either adverse possession or other action. You don't just assert adverse possession, you must file against the entity that was the putative owner.

---

It is possible to start a legal action when a party is unknown, assuming you give notice to a "John Doe" defendant consistent with the requirements of the court, and are willing to accept the possibility that even if you get a judgment the defendant, if and when actually identified, may have a basis to attack the judgment based upon a lack of personal service and notice. But in the case that you take over land and fulfill all of the requirements of adverse possession, you also have the option of sitting back and waiting for the owner to wake up to your actions and to try to eject you from the land -- at which time, assuming the statutory period has run, you can assert that their action is time-barred and petition the court to enter an order requiring county officials to issue title in your name.

We haven't spent much time discussing adverse possession, in part because the conversation went off on something of a tangent relating to the duties of a local government to identify and correct errors in its property tax rolls, but also in part because it's not yet clear that the OP meets any of the requirements to establish title by adverse possession. For the record, that would involve his proving that his possession has been actual, visible, notorious, exclusive, under a claim of ownership, hostile to the true owner, and continuous for the ten-year statutory period.

Quote:

---

Quoting LandSurveyor

---

Actually, courts have consistently supported the position that, once an adverse claim satisfies statutory requirements, title lies with the claimant at that moment.

---

On occasion, unusual situations arise in which it's necessary for a court to explain when the statutory period runs for an adverse possession claim. That type of statement may be seen, for example, in a case in which a state lengthens the statute of limitations for adverse possession, or carves out an exclusion for what land may be claimed by adverse possession. A court may point out that if the then-existing statute of limitations ran before the change in the law, the person claiming adverse possession gained title by adverse possession before the new law came into effect.

But no matter when the statute of limitations runs relative to the filing of legal claim for adverse possession, the person claiming title by adverse possession can only gain record title by proving the elements of adverse possession in court. To put it another way, you cannot walk into the office of a register of deeds and make the bare claim that you own land by virtue of adverse possession, and have them issue a deed in your name -- you must first prove your case in court and obtain an order to that effect.

If a person meets all of the elements for adverse possession for the statutory period and continues to do so through the time of an action for ejectment, it doesn't much matter whether the limitations period ended a few years earlier or the day before the ejectment action was filed. I'm not sure if you're picturing a case in which a person who is not meeting the elements of adverse possession, in response to an ejectment action, might claim that he did in fact meet all elements of adverse possession for the statutory period, but with that period having ended some years earlier. That would not be a particularly good strategy for defending against a possible future ejectment claim, given that evidence does not get stronger with age and the court is likely to be skeptical of claims of long-term past actions consistent with ownership when the same person's present actions are not. Further, the statute of limitations is a defense to an ejectment action -- so it's only "too late" to eject a person who has a potential adverse possession claim if that person both raises the statute of limitations as a defense and succeeds in that defense.

Quote:

---

Quoting llworking

---

Bud, there is still land in this country that is unowned by any individual or company. There are federal lands, state lands and county lands. Now, you may live in a state where no such land exists, or so very little of such lands exists that you are unaware of it, but government ownership of land does exist.

---

Of course I know that. My entire backyard borders on State land. I was responding to the notion that land goes to the county or state by default.

Quote:

---

Quoting budwad

---

Of course I know that. My entire backyard borders on State land. I was responding to the notion that land goes to the county or state by default.

---

Bud...who do you think owns land that was never owned by an individual or business? Who do you think owned that state land that borders your yard before it was owned by the state? How do you believe that the state come into possession of that land? Indiana certainly did not buy its land from the Indians.

Quote:

---

Quoting llworking

---

Bud...who do you think owns land that was never owned by an individual or business?

---

Here, we are talking about land that has a history of ownership. It is possible for such land to escheat to the state, but there's apparently nothing in the title history or tax records that would suggest an escheat.

Quote:

---

Quoting llworking

---

Bud...who do you think owns land that was never owned by an individual or business? Who do you think owned that state land that borders your yard before it was owned by the state? How do you believe that the state come into possession of that land? Indiana certainly did not buy its land from the Indians.

---

When the states/territories were created and surveyed, the state was able to 'convey ownership' by sale or claim, so that implies that at some point the state or territory did claim ownership.

Quote:

---

If a person meets all of the elements for adverse possession for the statutory period and continues to do so through the time of an action for ejectment, it doesn't much matter whether the limitations period ended a few years earlier or the day before the ejectment action was filed. I'm not sure if you're picturing a case in which a person who is not meeting the elements of adverse possession, in response to an ejectment action, might claim that he did in fact meet all elements of adverse possession for the statutory period, but with that period having ended some years earlier.

---

I'm not sure that I am getting your meaning, If the elements for adverse posseion actuaslly occured several years ago, title is vested with the adverse claimantat that time. After that time, the record title holder comes to the court as just another claimant through the well established legal avenues for such a new claim. The passage of time would tend to accrue against the holder of record title at that point, IMHO.

In researching the AP requirements of the 50 various states, I am not seeing a requirement for a foray into the court system to achieve the title. Always open to different opinions. Post them up.

Quote:

---

When the states/territories were created and surveyed, the state was able to 'convey ownership' by sale or claim, so that implies that at some point the state or territory did claim ownership.

---

Good question. Actually, no states or territoies had ownership, beginnig with the first of them, Ohio. The Federal Government owned all of the territories, subject to some reservations by some of the original 13 Colonies.

All of those claims, mainly in Ohio, were dealt with prior to the admission of Ohio, in 1803. All of the rest of the states subsequently created from the public domain were surveyed and sold to the public pursuant to Acts of Congress. Pursuant the the Acts, no Territory or State was created or has existed without Congrssional action.

It's not refuting your statement but without seeking legal ratification of
the claim of title by adverse possession, the (new) owner is limited to what benefit ownership has. Without proof of title they cannot build on the land. They cannot sell the land. They cannot encumber the land such as borrowing money against it. They cannot have the taxpayers name transferred to
their own.

They may have an issue if the police are involved such as if a report of trespass is alledged by a neighbor.

So, while title may have vested in the new owner, in reality that may be a hollow victory if there becomes any need to be required to prove ownership.

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

So, while title may have vested in the new owner, in reality that may be a hollow victory if there becomes any need to be required to prove ownership.

---

True enough and I think that I posted the equivalent in my first post of the thread. The sole point of my comment was that title passes when the stautory requirements of the state are met, and not at some later point where the fact is actually recognized by a court. Actually not a "hollow victory" at all but an actual vesting of title.

AP has been around since before mediaeval times, prior to recorded deeds, title insurance, mortgages, etc. It probably came over here with the Pilgrims and the States and the US Supreme Court see it as such, and as I have described it here.

Quote:

---

Quoting LandSurveyor

---

Actually not a "hollow victory" at all but an actual vesting of title.

---

You are trying to make an issue over references to title that, in context, refer to record title. While it may be ideal for people to be clear that they're speaking of record title, that usually actually is clear from context -- and as you concede, to get record title the person claiming adverse possession must go to court, whether by bringing an adverse possession action or by successfully proving adverse possession as an affirmative defense to an action for ejectment.

I am not sure why you find it confusing, that somebody who is not acting as if he owns a piece of property, but claims to have done so in the past, will have a greater difficulty proving adverse possession than somebody who has consistently acted as if he were the owner of the disputed land.

Quote:

---

Quoting Mr. Knowitall

---

You are trying to make an issue over references to title that, in context, refer to record title.

---

Not at all. Record title fails in every instance of the the context of actual title. That is my point and it is the point of the courts. A perfected adverse title, not requiring recognition by any coaurt, is superior to every other type of tiitle recorded or not. You are caught up in the modern concept of title insurance, deeds of record, etc. which have little to do with the superior title of perfected adverse posession. No realtion to actual title law at all.

There is no higher form of title.

Quote:

---

Quoting LandSurveyor

---

Not at all. Record title fails in every instance of the the context of actual title. That is my point and it is the point of the courts. A perfected adverse title, not requiring recognition by any coaurt, is superior to every other type of tiitle recorded or not. You are caught up in the modern concept of title insurance, deeds of record, etc. which have little to do with the superior title of perfected adverse posession. No realtion to actual title law at all.

There is no higher form of title.

---

But barring a recorded title op has no proof of any rights to
the property. He cannot defend his right to possession of the property and as such could be subject to a variety of actions until he has proof
ofnhis claims. That is what makes it a hollow victory.

Quote:

---

Quoting LandSurveyor

---

A perfected adverse title, not requiring recognition by any coaurt, is superior to every other type of tiitle recorded or not.

---

Sorry, but no. Claiming ownership in fee simple as a result of adverse possession is not superior to holding record title in fee simple -- assuming you actually can establish the claim should the matter eventually get to court, it's the same thing. And in the sense of your ability to convey an interest in the property, as a practical matter it is decidedly inferior.

If I claim ownership of two otherwise properties, one by virtue of adverse possession but without having proved that claim in court, and another to which I have clear record title, which do you think I can sell for more money? Which one would inspire buyers to wonder if I was trying to cheat them? If you aren't sure, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to which I have title by adverse possession and would like to sell to you.

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

But barring a recorded title op has no proof of any rights to
the property. .

---

As I stated earlier in the thread, this is not about the OP at all, but about the overall concept of AP in general, which has been brought up in the thread, and has has been discussed here previously ad infinitum and still misunderstood. I thought I made that clear.

Of course, in theory, the OP may have full title rights and proof thereof. It does not matter at all about "recorded" title. Title passes when the AP statutes are met. That is the proof, not a date in court, or any record.

It's difficult for many to understand the concept of the difference between actual title and record title. Courts have less problem with that.

Quote:

---

Sorry, but no.

---

Sorry, but yes. A perfected AP claim is superior to any other form of title.

Quote:

---

Quoting LandSurveyor

---

Sorry, but yes. A perfected AP claim is superior to any other form of title.

---

Sorry, but your repetition of an incorrect statement does not make it any less incorrect.

Under Indiana law, "record title is the highest evidence of ownership and is not easily defeated".

And, consistent with what jk and I have been explaining to you, over and over again, you can't simply claim "I own land by adverse possession" and have title superior to anybody else's -- you have to prove that claim in court.

Quote:

---

Quoting Angel v. Powelson, 977 N.E.2d 434, 444-445 (Ind.Ct.App.2012).

---

The doctrine of adverse possession is one that "entitles a person without title to obtain ownership to a parcel of land upon clear and convincing proof of control, intent, notice, and duration." Fraley v. Minger, 829 N.E.2d 476, 486 (Ind.2005).

---

Quote:

---

Quoting Mr. Knowitall

---

Sorry, but your repetition of an incorrect statement does not make it any less incorrect.

Under Indiana law, "record title is the highest evidence of ownership and is not easily defeated".

And, consistent with what jk and I have been explaining to you, over and over again, you can't simply claim "I own land by adverse possession" and have title superior to anybody else's -- you have to prove that claim in court.

---

Having not spent much time reading my previous posts in the thread, which fact is apparent, I would only point out to you that I never said that AP was eaily proven (I think I have already said as much) but that when proven on all facts and the claim is supportted by the requird facts, it is the highest form of title.

Of course the Indiana case you have provided defeats your case and makes mine, as I never said the an AP case was "easy", just that when provable in court, it could be successful.

I have looked through the AP statutes in every state, and the dc. I find no statute or case in the common law which requires any "court action" as a requirement for the perfection of an otherwise valid AP claim.

Of course I am always open to new opinions and I welcome any.

Quote:

---

Quoting LandSurveyor

---

Having not spent much time reading my previous posts in the thread, which fact is apparent, I would only point out to you that I never said that AP was eaily proven (I think I have already said as much) but that when proven on all facts and the claim is supportted by the requird facts, it is the highest form of title.

Of course the Indiana case you have provided defeats your case and makes mine, as I never said the an AP case was "easy", just that when provable in court, it could be successful.

I have looked through the AP statutes in every state, and the dc. I find no statute or case in the common law which requires any "court action" as a requirement for the perfection of an otherwise valid AP claim.

Of course I am always open to new opinions and I welcome any.

---

my point is simple; until ratified by a court the claimant cannot prove he has surpassed the requirements for AP whether he has met them or not. A court is the trier of fact that must rule before possessor has a enforceable claim.


in other words, if op (merely as a point of example) is charged with destruction of property on a parcel he claims he has a right to control, the arrest and prosecution is valid until such time a court ratifies his AP claim. While he may be able to prove his claim and right of control over the property during a subsequent criminal trial,
none the less, unless a court ratifies his AP claim he will be found guilty of the charges he faces. Regardless of his rights gained through AP, he must prove his claim is valid for it to be a viable defense for him. That means until his claim is ratified by a court it is nothing more than a claim. It is the ratification by the court that gives his claim any true authority.

Quote:

---

Quoting LandSurveyor

---

Having not spent much time reading my previous posts in the thread, which fact is apparent, I would only point out to you that I never said that AP was eaily proven (I think I have already said as much) but that when proven on all facts and the claim is supportted by the requird facts, it is the highest form of title.

---

You entered this thread in order to criticize another member for suggesting that it was necessary to prove an adverse possession case in court before you could treat property as if you have record title. You are now implicitly admitting that you were wrong to do so, even as you continue to demonstrate an unwillingness to acknowledge the reality set forth in the case law and continue to falsely suggest that a mere claim of title by adverse possession is superior to record title.

The highest form of title is fee simple absolute, which most certainly can be conveyed by deed. If somebody with a claim of adverse possession wants to defeat a claim of ownership by the person with record title, they must do so in court. I'm not sure why it is so painful for you to admit that obvious fact.

The highest form of title is described here:

"The lapse of time limited by such statutes not only bars the remedy, but extinguishes the right, and vests a perfect title on the adverse holder." Davis v. Millis: 154 US 461 (1904)

Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes

I would think that would be clear enough to most readers on the forum, and it simply indicates my original opinion on the matter but I am willing to provide additional clear examples of perfect title regarding the subject of my post for those who remain in doubt.

For those who differ with Justice Holmes opinon, just post up your dissents and we will get on about it. Understand that I am just getting started on the subject and will not be having much more to post here until the actual verifiable dissents, with verifiasble opinions, are posted. I'm sure that you understand.

Not reading that Justice Holmes requires a visit to his court or any other court for another adjudication. If you have a reversal of this in the US Supreme Court, post it up. I have no pain in posting this.

You are not quoting Justice Holmes. You are presenting his quotation from a prior, 1862 case, authored by Justice Swayne. You are not supporting your incorrect suggestion that somebody can claim to have title by adverse possession and gain the best possible title based upon that mere claim. You are supporting the correction of your claims, by citing a case in which adverse possession was raised as a defense to an ejectment action.

I am not sure why you have such difficulty admitting the obvious, but let's approach the issue from another angle. If you are sued for ejectment by the record title owner, and you fail to raise the statute of limitations as an affirmative defense in order to support a claim of adverse possession, you will lose your case and be ejected.

I think that you and LS are debating two different doctrines. That would be what is a perfect title based on adverse possession whether recorded or not and that which would be a marketable title (by today's legal standard).

I find nothing in the case law for the US or any state that says that AP doesn't grant a perfect title to land whether it is recorded or not or whether it is granted by a court or not for title. The law indicates that possession for the SOL will grant a perfect title to the property. The question becomes is that title marketable today without a court saying it is. I say it does not.

But the legal doctrine of past cases says it does. The facts of a particular case do not come to light until it is adjudicated in a court. There is not size fits all.

No, we're not arguing different issues. Nobody here has denied the consequence of adverse possession, if a person claiming adverse possession is able to prove in court that they met its elements for the statutory period." But one person is claiming that it's somehow not necessary to go to court to have superior title to a person with record title, and that a vaporous claim of adverse possession, never proved in court, is a superior claim to ownership than actual record title. That's not how things work.